The Catholic Church teaches that a 'state of necessity' cannot justify episcopal consecration without papal mandate, as jurisdiction is a divine right given by Christ to the Roman Pontiff, not a human right that can be claimed during Church crises. This doctrine, condemned by Pius X in the encyclical Ad Apostolorum Principes and reaffirmed by Pius IX in Quarta Supra, holds that bishops consecrated against the Pope's will lack legitimate jurisdiction and their sacramental acts are invalid. The speaker argues that the Fraternity of Saint Pius X's consecrations create a parallel hierarchy that fragments the Church into multiple sects, contradicting the fundamental Catholic principle that salvation requires communion with the Roman Pontiff.
Instala nuestra extensión para buscar dentro de cualquier video al instante
Los FUNESTOS ERRORES de Tomás González Pondal (FSSPX)Añadido:
Holy Spirit am creat spirits inter margin ave maredes holy marker am Santa Maríais santa Josefonobis Holy Spirit. Amen. Well, welcome to Project Pronoia. Tonight we are going to refute some serious errors made by Tomás González Pondal, an apologist for the Society of Saint Pius X.
We're going to give him a good rebuttal because there's quite a lot of his content.
He tried to respond to Father Federico Heon's book, "The Error of Febrist," some time ago, and no one has answered him yet. So tonight we're going to try to give an answer. He confirms those who are arriving, those who are joining, whether it can be heard well, or if it cannot be heard well.
Yes, it sounds good. Okay, thanks.
I want to pray first the litany of humility, seeing the Virgin's humility.
While we wait for more people to join us, the people that providence wants to send.
Jesus, meek and humble of heart, hear me.
From the desire to be flattered, deliver me, O Lord. From the desire to be praised, deliver me, O Lord. From the desire to be honored, deliver me, O Lord.
Lord, deliver me from the desire to be applauded. From the desire to be preferred to others, deliver me, O Lord.
Lord, deliver me from the desire to be consulted. From the desire to be accepted, deliver me, Lord.
Deliver me, O Lord, from the fear of being humiliated.
Deliver me, O Lord, from the fear of being despised.
Lord, deliver me from the fear of being rebuked.
Lord, deliver me from the fear of being slandered. From the fear of being forgotten, deliver me, Lord. Lord, deliver me from the fear of being ridiculed.
Lord, deliver me from the fear of being insulted. Lord, deliver me from the fear of being judged unjustly. That others may be loved more than I am.
Jesus, give me the grace to desire it. That others are more highly regarded than I am. Jesus, give me the grace to desire it. Let others grow in the world's opinion and let me fade into the background. Jesus, give me the grace to desire it. Let others be praised, and let no one take notice of me. Jesus, give me the grace to desire it. Others are given positions of power, while I am deemed useless. Jesus, give me the grace to desire it. That others are preferred to me in everything. Jesus, give me the grace to desire it. Let others be holier than I, as long as I am as holy as I can be. Jesus, give me the grace to desire it. O Jesus, who, being God, humbled yourself even to death, and death on a cross, to be a perpetual example that confounds our pride and self-love, grant us the grace to learn and practice your example, so that, humbling ourselves as befits our misery here on earth, we may be exalted to enjoy you eternally in heaven. Amen.
Holy Mary, pray for us.
Well, welcome. So, I'm going to disconnect from the chat so I don't lose focus.
Hey, engineer, I don't know your name, but anyway, thanks for being here. And when will we see a Bianquetti vs. Bianquetti match? Look, I would love to debate with Father Bianquetti.
Uh, I still need to do that.
I already challenged him to a debate.
Well, nobody, nobody, nobody joined those debates.
I still need to make a video against Bianquetti, refuting Bianquetti. I still need to do that. Pray that it can happen if God wills it. And well, you reminded me, uh, I'll start by inviting Tomás González Pondal to a public debate, shall I? I understand that he is aware of my content because in one of his last conferences published by The Fraternity about 10 or 12 days ago, he mentioned something about someone who was challenging the priests of the fraternity.
Well, that's me. The challenges to be discussed. Clear. And yes, we're going to debate like gentlemen, right? Okay, I'm logging off the chat. I ask that you put forward any objections, proposals, questions, comments, or inquiries that may arise. We'll try to sort everything out as soon as we have time. I have until 11:30 at night; we have an hour and a half to refute and to build.
I also start by reminding you that this Wednesday at 8 pm in Argentina, we have the Pronoia project masterclass of the month, the monthly conference on Chesterton and the Reconquest of healthcare. Yes, we are going to give a master class on the subject of madness in Chesterton and linking it with St. Thomas Aquinas and with the mystical theology of the father of Causad. If he is a former priest who has a treatise on abandoning Divine Providence. I invite you to join. The link to register is in the description of this video. And also, well, remember that the Pronoia project lives off providence, so we are looking for donors, for people who want to financially support the channel. We need committed people who want to donate steadily, monthly, so that we can, above all, start improving the video quality, the sound quality, the studio quality. Look, look at what this is. This is how we are, this is what we have, but well, we always seek the best to be able to transmit the message of the word of God with better clarity and quality. So I invite you to donate. Anyone who wants to get involved, write to me or contact me. My details are in the description of this video as well.
Okay, let's get to the point, stop rambling and get to the refutation.
First, I want to thank Tomás for his content, and especially for the valuable quotes he gives from the post-conciliar and conciliar magisterium, which can often be seriously ambiguous, if not directly erroneous, something I am not afraid to acknowledge, since the magisterium is not always infallible, right? To say that would be to go against a dogma, which is the dogma of papal infallibility, taught at the First Vatican Council.
As it seems, I'm not addressing it now to buy time, as some YouTubers, such as Matías Lescano or a YouTuber named Reisner, are doing, criticizing me publicly and saying that I am unfaithful to the Magisterium of the Church for being faithful to the Magisterium of the First Vatican Council.
Well, regarding that, I'll tell you that a refutation of the errors of these gentlemen will be released. In short, we already have an answer in the latest ecclesiology video that was published today about the episcopate and the papacy. In the last part, the second half, the final part, the question section, we answer directly to these questions that are asked of us. But I also want to warn that this is a serious mistake, the mistake of believing that the Pope can never be wrong.
This is an error that is sometimes as serious, or perhaps even more serious, than systematic errors. Uh, so I want to warn you about that. However, the teaching error that can occur, and I return to González Pondal, does not grant a mission. It does not grant a mission. Nobody is suddenly sent surreptitiously because the teaching staff makes a mistake. much less does it grant spiritual power of government. That's jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction is the spiritual power of government that comes from Christ God himself, who has spiritual power of government.
Yeah? So, however much we concede, right?, the crisis of the Church, the magisterial crisis, the crisis of the pontifical government, that does not justify a worldwide ministry without legitimate mandate, jurisdiction, or spiritual power. How can one preach if one is not sent? Saint Paul says. How can one presume to bind and unbind if one does not have the power to bind and unbind?
The error of teaching, much less does it substitute jurisdiction for someone who does not have it. This doctrine that mission or jurisdiction arises from necessity or arises from crisis is a completely new, totally progressive, totally novel, uh, totally modern doctrine and it is totally Lefebrian. It is, insofar as it is absolutely novel, it is absolutely Lefebrian, so it must be condemned from the outset. This doctrine is already condemned by the sign of Pistoia, which condemns the proposition that says that the ministry is founded on the need of souls.
How many times have we heard about the state of necessity, right?, which would found the ministry, the much- needed ministry of the fraternity of Saint Piém, without which there seems to be no salvation or absolution from sins. Well, let's review some of González Pondal's publications, starting with one of his latest posts on Facebook, where they try to justify the upcoming sacrilegious episcopal consecrations of the fraternity of Saint Pio de Simo, which will take place on July 1st. An act that the Church has already warned about just a few days ago will be formally schism. Yes. So, there isn't much work to be done, is there? Well, there are other publications, there are two public lectures by González Pondale and YouTube, both justifying Lefev and his seismic actions. Then there is a book published by him called The Great Fire, where he tries to refute the theses of Father Ferico Heiton in his work, The Ephebrist Error. In my opinion, it doesn't refute anything at all, but I want to focus on González Pondal's latest Facebook post. If you search for his profile, you'll find one of his most recent posts, where he tries to justify episcopal consecrations against the will of the Pope, relying on a pre-conciliar document from Pius XII that condemns episcopal consecrations against the will of the Pope. So, I was stunned to read that post because he himself quotes Uncle X that absolutely condemns the actions of the Society of Saint Pius X.
But, well, he tries to excuse that condemnation by saying that Pius X does not apply to the current situation precisely because of the state of crisis. Well, that Facebook post is a festival, a festival of sophisms, a festival of logical leaps, a festival of Protestant ecclesiology disguised as traditional piety, or as my friend Father Cristian Ferraro would say, it's a Rio carnival, a Rio carnival of logical leaps and logical irregularities, right? González Pondal commits the classic error of ephebrism, which is a term, ephebrism is a very very useful term because it denotes that there is a new doctrine which is the Lefebrian doctrine. Yes, the Lefebvrist doctrine. Some would tell me, "No, how can you speak the ephebrist if all they do is what the Church has always done?" Well, no. We are going to prove that what they are doing is not what the church has always done and that no one has ever done what they did. Someone holy. Yes. All the earthquake victims have done what they did, yes, but no saint, no doctors, no parents, no one has done what they did. And nobody says what they said.
González Pondaral then commits the classic error of delebrism. He confuses subjective theological orthodoxy with objective canonical mission, as if preaching sound doctrine or something like that made one a legitimate minister of the word and the sacraments, as if self-perception of one's own orthodoxy automatically conferred spiritual authority to mission throughout the world. It is a completely Protestant doctrine.
Okay, that's what needs to be said as an introduction to this broadcast. I will now examine and refute González Pondal's introduction to his own article, shall I? He begins by saying that he warns us that we must not cut the facts. He calls for cutting the facts, for framing the Ephebrian problem outside of the church crisis, which is something we don't do on this channel. We always talk about the crisis in the church, don't we? And we grant it. Nor do we spend our lives and 8 hours a day doing propaganda in favor of fraternity and showing the crisis of the church like another YouTube channel like José Placencia's. We don't do that, we don't waste time that way, but we do show and we do accept the crisis of the church. In all the videos where I talk about this, I acknowledge the crisis in the church. Yes.
So, there's no omission of facts. But he warns us that we must not remember the facts and justifies, seeks to justify the action of the ephebre, that of consecrating bishops against the will of the Pope, based on what he calls scandals and somersaults of the post- Vatican II Council ship. He states that there is an obvious state of necessity.
Well, here he commits the false cause fallacy and also legitimizes free examination. Because?
Because the fact that heresies, liturgical abuses, bad popes, bad bishops exist—what he would call seasickness—does not grant jurisdiction or power to console bishops against the mandate of the Roman Pontiff, even if the Roman Pontiff were himself a heretic, does it?
So, again, crisis does not give mission, crisis does not give jurisdiction, jurisdiction springs from above. That is the divine law of our Lord Jesus Christ.
And those who don't like it can leave the Catholic Church and found their own sect, which is in fact what happens. It's not that some do it with greater sincerity and truthfulness, and others do it saying that they are Catholic and that they are faithful to the Roman Pontiff.
So why do I say there is a false cause fallacy or a false origin fallacy? No, because the crisis of the church does not give jurisdiction and does not give mission.
Nor does he clarify what this state of need is, like a good Lefebvrist, falling into the same ambiguity that the Catholic Magisterium criticizes him for. I ask, state or necessity? Fantastic. State of need of what is it because the word need is always accompanied by a genitive, a noun of belonging. There is always a need for something. Yes. Unless we are talking about absolute metaphysical necessity, which exists only in God, necessity is contingent, it is something. Need for what? I ask. We concede the need to improve the liturgy. We concede the need to preach better doctrine and to preach the best doctrine.
Need for better seminars.
We grant the need to set up a pseudo-world ministry outside of the hierarchical communion in the one Church of Christ. We categorically deny and condemn this as a schismatic action against all of our tradition.
Yes, there is never any need to set up a pseudo-world ministry against the will of the Roman Pontiff of the Catholic hierarchy, even if it is a hierarchy that is affected by heresy.
This must be categorically denied. This reminds me of a funny yet theologically profound quote from the Catholic magazine in the United States.
You'll tell me, "He's quoting a magazine." What is this? No no. The Catholic magazine of the United States is a jewel of the 19th century, headed by two great theologians, the Reverend Charles White, yes? A prominent theologian and great apologist of the time. and the Reverend Martin John Spalding, one of the most brilliant minds in 19th-century apologetics, who a few years after this publication would become Bishop Louis Bill and eventually Archbishop of Baltimore.
So, I'm going to quote the Catholic Magazine of the United States of December 1844, pages 757, 76, and 767.
They talk here about the apostolicity of the church. These theologians confronted those schismatics of the time, the 19th century, who sought to establish a supposed Catholic ministry in the Ephebrian style based on a state of necessity. Let's see what it says, what this magazine says. They say, and I quote, there is another condition, besides valid ordering. Yes, valid ordination is not enough for a ministry to be Catholic. Uh, why? Because any sectarian can have valid orders and obtain a valid sectarian bishop. There is no other condition that is absolutely required, says this magazine, to be linked with the ministry of the apostles, that is, to be a true successor of the apostles, namely, a legitimate mission or authoritative faculty, that is, jurisdiction given by him to whom belongs this right of what, to preach, administer the sacraments and perform the other sacred functions leading to the sanctification and salvation of souls.
Without this regular mission that the very name of apostle implies and presupposes, apostle means sent one. That is why it is madness to try to consecrate bishops without a mission, or that bishops are successors of the apostles. Of course, a bishop without a commission, even with a valid order, is not a legitimate successor of the apostles, but is, in the words of Pius Sextus, a pseudo- bishop, even if he has several orders. Without this mission, these theologians say, anyone who presumes to exercise a part of the ecclesiastical duties of his own free will is, in the eyes of both reason and faith, a profane intruder usurping an office that does not belong to him and has no title, right, power, or jurisdiction in the church.
This is what the Lefebvrist bishops are going to do on July 1st, profane intruders. usurping positions that do not belong to them, they will have no title, no right, no power, and no jurisdiction in the Church. What does the scripture say? Will they call upon the God in whom they have believed? Saint Paul says this. Or how can they believe in one of whom they have not heard?
And how will they hear without a preacher? And how can they preach unless they are sent?
Romans 10:14 and 15. Holy Scripture condemns them, tradition condemns them.
When? When? throughout the Catholic tradition.
You who speak of tradition saw a bishop without a mission, without having been sent. When? Give me just one example.
All the examples you give me will be of schismatic bishops. Even in civil society, these theologians say, no one is allowed to take up public employment unless called to it by a legitimate authority. It doesn't take two quads. How much less, how much less can anyone be allowed to do this in the Church of Christ, in that society whose author and founder is the son of God.
And here comes the fun, ironic part, which is not because of that, not because it is fun, ironic, less profound and less doctrinal and dogmatic. Notice how these theologians speak. They say there is a need to establish a new ministry. But where is it written in the authentic records of divine revelation that necessity can found a divine mission? We read in the scripture, Hebrews 5. I quote, "No one takes the honor upon himself, but he who is called by God, just as Aaron was." And these theologians ask, "Where do we read? Nor does anyone take the honor for himself, but he who is called to it by necessity."
This doesn't exist.
We also learn from Saint Paul that no one can preach unless he is sent.
Romans 10. But where does it say, except in case of necessity?
Need. Therefore, dear Lefebvrists, or if you do n't like the term, dear members of the Fraternity of Saint Peter XO, I need, therefore, to say with the Catholic magazine of the United States and the American apologists of the 19th century.
Therefore, "need" is a meaningless word in this case. That's why when people talk to me about a state of need, it's a meaningless word. Only God has the right to appoint his ministers, these theologians say, his ambassadors, the preachers of his word, the dispensers of his mysteries.
If there should arise—listen to this—if there should arise any need to deviate from his laws, that is, the divine law, which indicates that only the Supreme Pontiff has the divine right to institute bishops, this is taught by Pius IX, we will quote him in the fourth paragraph above.
Only if there were a need to deviate from divine law, from His laws, the laws of God, only He, only God could provide for the emergency, right? Self-sent priests. If the ministry originally instituted had fallen and become invalid, no one but Christ himself could have restored it or established a new one in its place. They say this against the Protestants who also invoked a state of necessity to exercise their ministry. Because? Because the ordinary ministry would have failed, would be invalid, or would be defective or faulty. No, theology already answers this. No one but Christ himself could restore the ordinary ministry, because otherwise anyone could claim to be the legitimate, supposed minister of Christ. Yes.
Therefore, if someone claims to be a minister of Christ without having been sent on a canonical mission, he must prove it with miracles. The doctrine of Innocent III and Benedict X.
Why? Because otherwise anyone can appear and say, "Tradition sent me," or as Febre said, " Eternal Rome sent me." When Rome itself, concrete and visible, is condemning you. How can we believe them?
Because they preach the catechism of Saint Pius X. Any heretic or schismatic can preach the catechism of Saint Pius X. Are we going to be so foolish as to believe them simply because they wear a cassock and have a Mass with incense, the Trientine Mass, and deliver beautiful sermons? Therefore, are we going to entrust our immortal souls to their pseudo- ministry when they haven't been sent by legitimate authority? Where does their authority come from? From the state of necessity.
What are we talking about? That doctrine is condemned. Dear brothers, what are we talking about?
Please also remind us of the Pondalian and Lefebvrian doctrines of the 19th-century philosopher Jaime Balmes, held in high esteem by many Lefebvrists. Let's see what he says about the consecration of bishops against the Pope's will based on a state of necessity. Out of necessity. Let's see what Jaime Valmes says.
Apologetic Studies, Complete Works.
1843, volume 9, pages 370 to 373 and 1925 edition.
Valmes says, doesn't he? Against what bishops want to console by breaking the divine law of our Lord Jesus Christ. That is, against the will of the Roman pontiff who has the divine right to institute us. He says, "They are not going to speak of extreme needs to confirm a bishop without the Pope's permission." Whether they go or go, they speak of extreme needs, whether they go or go, they recall the old discipline, whether they go or go in all the preambles of the decrees that prescribe submission to intruders.
They go outside in all the talks, pastoral messages, and speeches of these people to convince others of their legitimacy. A thousand and a thousand feathers would prove the violation of the sacred canons, the subversion of discipline, the breaking of unity. Thousands upon thousands of tongues would be used, publicly or secretly, to combat the disastrous error and the Catholic Spanish people, by ideas, by customs, by habits. This people, endowed by Providence with an admirable discernment for knowing the wolf even when it wears sheep's clothing, the people, we repeat, addressing the false shepherds, would say to them, "We don't know as much about these things as you do, but what we cannot ignore is that we haven't seen you enter through the door, and whoever doesn't enter through it is a thief, according to the teaching of the divine master, Jaime Valmes. It is very important," he continues, "not to lose sight of the fact that dogma and discipline, although distinct, are nevertheless so intertwined that it is difficult to touch much of the latter without also affecting the former. And once again, on pages 179 and 180, he says that the election and confirmation of bishops is a matter of discipline, but certainly one cannot touch upon it without disturbing dogma. Indeed, change this discipline, follow the advice of those who claim that dogma is not at stake here, and you will see," says Jaime Valmes, "how you find yourselves."
with the primacy of the Supreme Pontiff, one of the fundamental dogmas of Catholicism.
Dear friends of Project Pronovia, in Catholic ecclesiology, the crisis of the Church is combated with holiness and filial resistance in the manner of the canonized saints of all times, and not by usurping the divine rights of the papacy.
The Church has had terrible popes, and never has a holy doctor or a pious soul proposed that the solution to a doctrinal crisis was to create a parallel hierarchy without mandate, commission, or spiritual power of governance. We will be told that the fraternity of Saint Pigo X does not intend to form a parallel hierarchy because its intentions are good. But we ask, in this regard, whether forming a structure of bishops independent of the hierarchical communion is something different from forming a parallel pseudo-hierarchy. If we cannot call that a parallel hierarchy, what should we call it? What should we call it? I ask, even supposing that its intentions are the holiest of all, what should we call the objective act of consecrating bishops against the express will of the Church? the Roman Pontiff and under the warning that they will be excommunicated?
Let us remember that the right to elect bishops belongs to the Pope by institution of Christ himself. I invented this. Is it a legalistic norm? Is it a positivist norm? Is it a juridical norm? Is it a progressive and modernist norm?
No, it is a norm of Blessed Pius IX.
He says in the encyclical Quaertus supra, condemning the Armenian schismatics who wanted to preserve traditional rites and, for fear of not being able to maintain them, erected a parallel ministry, keeping bishops against the will of Pius IX. Notice how Pius IX answers them. I quote, "We consider that Pius IX considered that he should not remain silent about our right to elect a bishop outside of the three recommended candidates." That is, Pius IX had recommended three candidates and says, "It is our right to elect a bishop outside of them."
Or perhaps the Armenians had recommended three candidates, but the right to elect The one he was to succeed apostolically was Pius Noero. That is why he said, "We consider that we should not remain silent about our right to choose a bishop outside of the three recommended candidates in case the apostolic see is obliged to exercise this right in the future, the right to choose bishops." But even if we had remained silent, this right and duty of the See of Blessed Peter would have remained intact.
Intact. Because? Because the rights and privileges given to the apostolic see by Christ himself, av, ipso, Cristo deo, although they may be attacked, cannot be destroyed.
No man has the power to renounce a divine right that he may at some point have been obliged to exercise by the will of God himself.
This, dear brothers, is a divine right of Rome, of the Supreme Pontiff, not even of the College of Bishops, but of the Supreme Pontiff, given by Christ God himself.
Just as he gave the prerogative of infallibility in the cases in which it is executed, he has also given the prerogative of appointing bishops by divine right. It is a divine right that one may not always exercise, even though one always has it. And with this doctrine that is already in the fourth paragraph above, we refute the objection that tells us, uh, sometimes the Pope does not choose the bishops and of course, he does not choose them because he delegates the right, but the right remains his. That is why Pius IX says, we have the right, although we do not always use it, because many times we delegate that power, we delegate that authority. That's why many will tell me, "Ah, well, but no, bishops were not often kept without the mandate of Rome." That's fine, without the express mandate, but with the implicit mandate by delegation or by lack of communication.
When was a Catholic bishop ever appointed against the express will of the Roman Pontiff? And such consecration was never, ever considered holy by Herobican.
That is why this dogmatic doctrine of Pius IX in Cuarto Supra remains intact.
Therefore, Leo XIV cannot renounce his divine right to appoint bishops and to reject false pastors at the moment when he might be forced to exercise it by the will of God himself.
What are they going to tell me? Because this doctrine is old and no longer applies to the current church, which is progressive. Now, however, says Pius IX, some resent and regret both our declaration that this apostolic see has the right and power to choose a bishop, either from among the three recommended names or from outside of them, and our prohibition of the enthronement of an elected patriarch without our prior confirmation. In other words, he says, there are some who resent and complain about our right.
They call our attention to the customs and canons of their churches, as if we had abandoned the provisions of the sacred canons or as if they had abandoned tradition.
We could respond to these men in the same way that our predecessor St. Gelatius did when the schismatic Acians presented him with the same false accusation.
Gellius said, "They quote the canons against us without knowing what they are saying, for they show that they themselves are in opposition to the canons by the very fact of denying obedience to the first see, even though their advice is sound and correct." What is Gelacio telling us? Even if they preach all good doctrine, if they do not obey the Roman Pontiff in matters of divine law and holy obedience, it is of no use.
Because these, says Pius IX, are precisely the canons who recognize the full divine authority of the blessed Peter over the whole church. That is why Jaime Valme said that they are implicitly denying the primacy, the dogma of the primacy. Indeed, says Pius IX, these canons proclaim that he, the blessed Peter, lives and exercises judgment in his successors to the present time and forever, as the Council of Ephesus affirmed. That is why all the pseudo-traditionalist, pseudo-traditionalist, and sedacantist sites that say that excommunications will not have value are saying that the blessed Peter will not exercise his power in the Church under the ministry of Leo XIV, going against the Council of Ephesus of Pius IX, of Saint Gelatius, and of all tradition. With good reason then, says Pius IX, Stephen, bishop of Larissa, gave this firm answer to those who considered that the privileges of the churches of Constantinople were somewhat diminished by the intervention of the Roman Pontiff. Stephen said, "The authority of the apostolic see, which was given by God and our savior to the prince of the apostles, exceeds the privileges of all the holy churches. Recognizing this, all the churches of the world should cease their opposition."
Notice that here the Bishop of Larissa is speaking about churches in the world. The Fraternity of Saint Pioésimos is not even a church; it is an entity that has no canonical recognition in the Catholic Church. It was suppressed by Paul VI5 and was founded as a pious union of lay people for 6 years and has already expired and was legally suppressed. There is no more. In other words, it has no right whatsoever to minister and administer the sacraments, much less to retain bishops. How many religious orders?
How many of the old religious institutes could ask the Pope for a bishop if they don't?
A pious union ad experimentum aims to consecrate four or five bishops against the will of the Pope. What are we talking about?
But the most striking thing about González Pondares is that in his introduction he says that time has shown that the San Piudé fraternity has been right, especially with everything it has done, of course, and especially in consecrating bishops in 1988 and therefore also in consecrating bishops now in a month.
Let's see if time has really proven them right.
Let's see, let's see what time has said.
If Pondal claims that time has proven the brotherhood right, we must respond with the objective evidence of time itself. The fraternity was right to apply private judgment and free examination of Protestant style to consecrate a bishop against the express will of the Holy See, when the Holy See itself had offered a bishop from the fraternity's ranks for August 15, 47 days after the acrylic consecrations of four bishops against the will of the same Roman pontiff who categorically said no.
Time has not vindicated fraternity; time has exposed its fatal error. Today we see how their pseudo- apostolic succession has dispersed and fragmented into a multitude of sects.
Bishop Williamson, using exactly the same argument of state of necessity that Febre used against Rome, applied this argument to the very fraternity of Saint Pius X in order to found the resistance to the fraternity of Saint Pius X, as Williamson's new congregation, which he had already died, was called, and in turn consecrate at least six more bishops.
What a fruit of the schism. Time has shown that earthquake breeds earthquake.
We asked the audience, didn't we?
Question to ponder during this live stream. What good fruit have been borne by 40 years of confessions and marriages that are objectively invalid due to a lack of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, that is, the power of Christian government that comes from Christ? What good has that produced?
So, invalid acquittals, eh, concubinages, right?
Objectively invalid marriages. It promotes fornication and cohabitation, at least on an objective level. What good fruit has been borne by the avalanche of doctrinal errors that we have denounced so many times on this channel and that the Lefebvrists pretend not to hear?
Errors concerning assent to the Magisterium, errors concerning the apostolicity of the Church, errors concerning the papacy, errors concerning jurisdiction and mission, all matters of dogma. To understand the gravity of this drift, let me summarize the current situation of the ephebrist world from a Chestertonian perspective.
Since we're talking about Chesterton, I'd like to take this opportunity to recommend the masterclass this Wednesday at 8 pm Argentina time ( virtual). It's recorded, but join us, there are limited spots available.
Masterclass on Chesterton and madness. Chesterton and madness. What will happen in the future of the ephebist movement?
The link for Chesterton's description is in the description of this video. What will happen in the future of the ephebrist movement? The logic of error tells us that the bishops consecrated by Williamson, who was consecrated by Febre supposedly out of necessity, which bishops? Bishops Faure, Cendejas, Thomas Aquinas, Morgan, Stniki and Balini will do mutatis, mutandis, exactly the same as their fathers, that is, rebel and divide. And we can assume the same about the Lefurian bishops, because who can assure us that the Lefebvrian bishops will not be the same as Williamson?
No, the most dramatic and paradoxical proof that Williamson's resistance doesn't resist anything is that as such it doesn't even exist. After Williamson's death, the movement proved to have neither leader, nor spokesperson, nor unity; there wasn't even a joint official statement about his death. What Williamson founded de facto by applying the Ephebrian principle of the state of necessity was not a unified front, but at least six distinct sects, each with its own bishop. The best and funniest description of this phenomenon was given by the administrator of a traditionalist forum. He says, "Defebrism is like herding cats. Cats are fiercely independent animals that do as they please. They cannot be herded into a unified flock because they reject the shepherd. The fruit of ephebrism is endless fragmentation.
What assures us that the bishops who were consecrated on July 1st in a sacrilegious and criminal manner, in the words of Pius XII, will not end up in a Williamsonian-style drift?
Absolutely nothing assures us of this, because when divine law is destroyed, this is what happens.
What exists today are small groups: Defebrism, sedebacanism, the various types of sedebacanism, Williamsonism, Faurism, Cendejism, Elinism, Balinism, and the sectarian cycle will repeat itself ad infinitum, imitating the tragedy of Protestantism.
They will accuse each other of being liberal or traditional, like the founder. They will fight and divide. New bishops will be retained, claiming a renewed state of necessity. The divisions are not due to high theology.
Theology is in the tradition we already mentioned, as Bishop Dolan himself confesses, who jumped from the Society of Saint Pius X to co-found the Society of Saint Pius V. He went a little further from Saint Pius and founded the Fraternity of Saint Pius V.
Dolan himself, bishop sede vacantista, says, "These sects suffer from the syndrome of the four of the four p's of force."
Personality, politics, power, and sometimes psychosis. Dolan says there is a disdain for clear doctrine, replacing it with the guru and the personality cult of the leader of the moment.
Dolan admits with brutal honesty that many of these supposedly traditional leaders are clinically bipolar. They act from messianic euphoria to deep depression, dragging souls along on their psychological roller coasters and threatening the faithful with hell if they do not blindly follow them.
Sectarianism is no joke, it's a soul grinder. Dolan says this.
Some will say to me, "Ah, but Ezequiel, you don't know the inner workings of the fraternities." Well, look at what Dolan, a bishop from the Febrian movement, says about the psychosis or psychology of these sectarian groups.
This is not a valuable experience, it is not a quote from an authority.
Well, to this we must add the phenomenon of incendiary, seismic proselytizing on the internet.
Young converts, many ex-Protestants or Catholics without training, are radicalized by social media algorithms, creating tribal bubbles identical to those of political extremism.
We see a phenomenon of supermarket ecclesiology or church shopping deeply rooted in Anglo-Saxon liberal culture, but which is now global.
How does this work? If I don't like the priest or the pope, I'll leave and look for a sect that suits me. It is the tyranny of free inquiry disguised as traditional piety. It's like progressives who remove what they don't like from the creed. Pope Leo I, in his encyclical Testen benevolence of 1899, prophetically condemned this attitude. He says, "The license that is often confused with freedom, such a passion for speaking and contradicting, in short, the ability to say whatever one wants, makes the need for the Church's teaching greater now than before so that people are not led astray from duty."
End of quote. Many young people seeking to escape modern and modernist chaos are attracted to traditional aesthetics, the smell of incense, the bell, the cassock, and good doctrine when it appears. But defebrism offers them a poisoned temptation, the illusion of having Catholic tradition without having to obey the Pope or the bishops.
This has generated a bizarre traditionalism.
Just as the Protestant doesn't care if you 're Baptist or Methodist as long as you reject Rome. The radicalized pseudo-traditionalist doesn't care which sect in the Lefebvrist galaxy you belong to, as long as you reject the living teachings of the Church and the Catholic hierarchy.
So, time has not vindicated the fraternity in any way. Time has shown that when the bond of jurisdiction and submission to Christ's authority, which are matters of divine law, is severed in order to save the liturgy or the doctrine, nothing is saved.
An inexhaustible factory of small earthquakes is inaugurated.
That concludes the first part of this refutation.
Please post your comments and objections. We have 50 more minutes.
Hey, consider donating, okay? I take this opportunity to remind everyone of that. This Pronoia project boils down to divine providence sending us donors.
Committed donors who contribute every month. So that? in order to be able to cover the expenses involved.
Design expenses, strategy expenses, apostolic expenses. The microphone camera needs improvement. Look at this. We cannot preach sound doctrine with a microphone like that, with a camera like that. We need to improve all of this. We need help. We need committed donors. Anyone who wants to commit to Pronovia for the glory of God and the salvation of souls, to convert souls and save souls, write to me on WhatsApp or to the email in the description of this video. And anyone who wants to participate in the next Pronoia masterclass next Wednesday, May 20th at 8 pm, can register in the description of this video. It's a bombshell masterclass from Chesterton to Saint Thomas, to de Causade, to Saint Thomas More to talk about divine providence, to talk about madness, about rationalism.
Okay, I invite you to join. Don't miss out, there are limited spaces available. It's going to be an amazing masterclass at a very affordable price. Don't hesitate to ask questions, send masterclass requests to that link, Celeste, who is the coordinator of Pronodia Management, Administration and Registrations, will have them. They sign up there with her. They send masterclasses, people sign up, and they are registered. Then they'll see if they join. Sign up, save your place, you can always record it. Okay, let's move on to the second part of the refutation.
We are refuting González Pondal.
Well, González Pontal offers us an analysis of AD Apostolorum Príncipes. Ad apostolorum príncipes is a document by Pius II where he again condemns the consecration of bishops without a pontifical mandate.
What is Pondal's argument? Of course, he has postulated that any prince who reads it will realize that the arguments of PO 12, as they are matters of dogma, apply perfectly to the Ephebrian case. But what does Pondal say? He argues that Pius XII is condemning the Chinese Patriotic Church because the Chinese Patriotic Church had communist political aims and false doctrine.
Now, this is his syllogism. Now, that's the first premise. The second premise is that fraternity supposedly defends the Catholic truth of all time and is not communist.
Therefore, in conclusion, Pius X's encyclical does not apply to them. Basically, this is Pondal's analysis.
Okay, let's analyze this. First, false. Fratomy does not have the same doctrine as always. We have already proven that.
In any case, Pondal has to refute all the videos in which we demonstrate this, especially the current ecclesiology course with Professor Mayereger.
On the other hand, the subjective intention of wanting to save tradition does not alter the objective nature of the act of usurping jurisdiction. No matter how much I want to save tradition or how many holy intentions I have, if I am usurping jurisdiction, I am usurping jurisdiction. Although I perceive myself as a savior and a heroic guardian of tradition.
In any case, with that self-perception, subjective guilt may be altered, but the objective act is what it is. Unless the Lefebvrists want to induce us to a philosophical relativist subjectivism that says that reality is not what it is, but what each person thinks or supposes or what each person's heart tells them. If I have good intentions, as Father Mercimo says, who justifies the February massacre, because supposedly he has good intentions, right? According to Father Mercimo, whom we call to conversion at this point, the subjective intention does not justify the intrinsic evil of the act, right? So, reality is not what it is, reality is what my heart dictates, my subjective intention. In al apostolum principis 38 391 PO 12 he does not condemn the consecrations of the Chinese only because they are communists, he condemns them by a principle of divine law, which is that complete freedom in the nomination of bishops is a right of the Roman pontiff given by Christ God himself, we already cited it in Pius IX. There is continuity of Pius XII here. He does not condemn the Chinese for political, pastoral, or diplomatic reasons; he condemns them by divine right. Pius X is unequivocal, stating that bishops consecrated against the express orders of the Pope, and I quote, do not enjoy teaching powers or jurisdiction. What is jurisdiction? Jurisdiction is the power of spiritual government and its acts, says Piodose, are gravely illicit, that is, criminal and sacrilegious.
Therefore, Lefebvrian consecrations are going to be criminal and sacrilegious, and all acts that come from these consecrations are also going to be criminal and sacrilegious.
Sacrilegious, I'm sorry.
Pondal omits that usurping papal jurisdiction is by definition a schismastic act, regardless of whether the one doing it prays the rosary in Latin or reads the communist manifesto. What does Pondal tell us? It tells us that Pius X refers to it very specifically in the encyclical Adestolidor un príncipis in these terms.
Pius X says of the aforementioned Patriotic Church, and I quote, "They have long been striving to spread among the people the completely false idea that Catholics have the power to directly elect their bishops. To justify this type of election, they cite the need to attend to the souls of the people as quickly as possible and to entrust the administration of the dioceses to those pastors who, by not submitting to communist political desires and methods, are acceptable to the civil authorities." In other words, González Pond is quoting Pius XII, who condemns the Chinese for wanting to establish a ministry partly for communist reasons and partly to respond to what they perceive as a need of the faithful. And he also condemns the idea that the people elect the bishops, right? Here we must call attention to all those who are engaging in ecclesiastical or pseudo-ecclesiastical politics by opposing Romano-Pontifical decisions in matters where he has the power of governance by divine institution, as if campaigning against consecrations... Lefebvrianism, uh, it would make any sense, as if the bishops depended on the will of the people. They're democratic now.
Monsignor Schneider, what is he? A Democrat now. John Henry Western of Life Side News, what is he? A Democrat. That the Church is a democracy, now we all vote. How does that work? No, they didn't want traditional doctrine. Where is traditional doctrine?
Well, let's see how Pondal refutes Pius XII. Now, Pius XII totally refutes Lefebvism. He says, Pius XII says, the canons have been clearly and expressly established that it is the sole Apostolic See's prerogative to judge whether a person is fit for the dignity and office of the episcopate, and that complete freedom in the nomination of bishops is the right of the Roman Pontiff.
This, all of this, everything I read now is quoted from Pius XII, quoted by Pondal, uh, but yes, I mean, then Pondal says that this does not apply to the Ephebrists. I mean, look at the level of intellectual blindness required to see that something so obvious supposedly wouldn't apply to the same thing, to a repetitive act of the very thing being condemned. PO 12 continues: But if, as sometimes happens, certain persons or groups are allowed to participate in the selection of an episcopal candidate, this is lawful only if the Apostolic See has expressly permitted it in each particular case for clearly defined persons or groups, with the conditions and circumstances being very clearly determined. Point 38.
That is the issue of delegation we were discussing.
Pius II states: Granting this exception, it follows that bishops who have not been appointed or confirmed by the Apostolic See, but who, on the contrary, have been elected and consecrated in contravention of its express orders, do not enjoy teaching powers or jurisdiction, since jurisdiction is transmitted to bishops only through the Roman Pontiff, as we noted in the letter. The encyclical Mysticus Christus : it cites Mysticus Christus itself with regard to his own diocese. Each bishop shepherds the flock entrusted to him as a true shepherd and governs it in the name of Christ.
However, in exercising this office, they are not entirely independent, but are subordinate to the legitimate authority of the Roman Pontiff, although they enjoy the ordinary power of jurisdiction which they receive directly from the same Supreme Pontiff.
Now, you might ask, what is jurisdiction? Is jurisdiction a territory? No, it can be a territory.
Yes, but jurisdiction has at least two senses. As a territory in which I have authority, and the primary sense from which this second sense flows, or the sense of jurisdiction, is the spiritual authority of governance that comes from Christ God himself through the Pope, to bishops, to priests.
Jurisdiction is a power of spiritual governance, of binding and loosing.
Jurisdiction taken in the sense of Territory. It is territory over which I have jurisdiction. Each bishop has jurisdiction in his diocese, which is his territorial jurisdiction.
The Pope has jurisdiction over the whole world. Well, even more so, he continues, he continues quoting González Pondal, he does not refute himself by quoting Pius X. When later we addressed to you the letter Adsarum e Gentiles, another letter where this same doctrine is explained, we referred again to this teaching with these words.
The power of jurisdiction which is conferred directly by divine right upon the Supreme Pontiff, immediately given by Christ, comes to the bishops by that same divine right, but only through the successor of Peter, to whom not only the faithful, but also all bishops are bound to constantly submit and adhere both by the reverence of obedience and by the bond of unity.
And González Pondal asks us to pay attention to the following words of the Pope found in points 41 and 43.
He says, says Pius X, the acts which require the power of holy orders that are performed For ecclesiastics of this type—that is, ecclesiastics who have not been ordained, although they are valid while their consecration was valid—are gravely illicit, that is, criminal and sacrilegious.
And González Pondal asks us to read the following quote: “We know that those who despise obedience to justify themselves regarding the functions they have unjustly assumed defend their position by invoking an ancient custom. However, it is evident that all ecclesiastical discipline is broken if one attempts in any way to reinstate provisions that are no longer valid because the Supreme Authority of the Church decreed the contrary long ago. They in no way justify their conduct by appealing to another custom and indisputably demonstrate that they are deliberately following this path to evade the current discipline to which they should obey.”
And González Pondal tells us, reiterates, that the Chinese sect expressly separated itself from the Catholic Church, expressly constituted itself as the Chinese Church, and expressly created a hierarchy that deliberately sought to separate itself from the Catholic hierarchy. Supposedly this wouldn't happen with the Society of Saint Pius X, right? Well, in fact the same thing is happening, isn't it? In words they may still be saying, "We are the Church, we are of the Catholic Church, " but the words don't match reality.
In full continuity with the doctrine defined infallibly at the First Vatican Council, Pius teaches in the encyclical Ad Apostul Principis. He states: "We teach, we declare that the Roman Church, by the providence of God, holds the primacy of ordinary power over all others, and that this power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate." Before her, pastors and the faithful of any rite and dignity, both individually and collectively, are bound by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, not only in matters pertaining to faith and morals, but also in those concerning the discipline and governance of the Church spread throughout the world. Thus, once the unity of communion and the profession of the same faith with the Roman Pontiff are preserved, there is one flock of the Church of Christ under one supreme shepherd.
This is the teaching of Catholic truth, says Pius II, this regarding obedience to matters of discipline.
This is the teaching of Catholic truth from which no one can depart without losing faith and salvation. In other words, those who follow the Ephesian teachings put themselves in danger of losing their faith and salvation.
Let's move on to the third point of this refutation, refuting the fallacy of canon 1323 and the state of necessity, which we already did, but now we'll go with it under the formality of canon 1323 of the code of canon law.
Let's see. Before moving on to that, I remind you again that this Wednesday at 8 pm Argentina time we have the masterclass on Chesterton and the Reconquest of Healthcare. We're going to move from Chesterton to Saint Thomas Aquinas, to Causade's father, to Thomas More. Okay, let's talk about the reconquest of health, the loss of mental health through rationalism, logicist confinement, and the encounter with mental health through abandonment, divine providence, and contact with reality.
Sign up, the link to register is in the description of this video. Spaces are limited, don't miss out, it's going to be amazing!
We move on to canon 1323.
Gonzal González Pondal invokes canon 1323 which supposedly speaks to us of a state of necessity, arguing that the state of necessity is pre-normative, that is, it is prior to the Code of Canon Law, it would be something of natural law and divine law. And he uses the example of Saint Thomas Aquinas that it is lawful to steal in a state of necessity because material goods are ordered to human need.
So if there's a need, we can steal and it wouldn't strictly be theft.
Well, there was a terrible analogy about bread, wasn't there? Saint Thomas says that we can steal bread if we are starving and under the jurisdiction. Saint Thomas teaches that stealing bread in extreme need is not a sin, because the universal destination of material goods, a natural right, takes precedence over private property, a human right.
But ecclesiastical jurisdiction is not a material good. Jurisdiction is a spiritual power that flows from Christ to Peter and from Peter to the bishops. No one can steal jurisdiction to save souls. The apostolic mission does not spring from the needs of the people, but rather from the legitimate sending, from the mission. If there is no shipment, then without shipment there is usurpation, right?
Private property is founded on natural law. That's clear, isn't it? Of course.
So, you can't steal jurisdiction from the Pope who is denying it to you in order to supposedly save souls.
Jurisdiction implies that to exercise it you have to have the shipment. No, if there is anything that is incompatible with the salvation of souls, it is usurping jurisdiction.
That leads to condemnation, doesn't it? To salvation. Here is a canonical suicide of Pondal. He invokes canon 1323, paragraph 4, but omits, as Losebrians always do, the most important subsidiary cause of the canon.
This last cause, the last clause, pardon, says unless the act was intrinsically evil or resulted in harm to souls. I have already refuted this argument. This canon 1323 puts us in a place where it says that if one falls into a canonical penalty due to a state of necessity perceived by the subject, there would not be a crime. There would be no crime, there would be no guilt in the subject. But well, in the end that same canon ends up saying, "Unless the act was intrinsically evil or resulted in harm to souls." Of course, breaking the divine unity of the Catholic Church by appointing a bishop against the will of the Pope results in harm to souls and is intrinsically evil. Therefore, no state of necessity can justify it because, moreover, no state of necessity can justify destroying divine law. Because divine law, being divine, as it comes from God, provides for all needs. Therefore, we must trust in God's divine providence, in the indefectibility of the Church, not set ourselves up as ministers and pastors, and go out to mission without a mission. To console bishops against the will of the Pope is to usurp a divine right and break the unity of the Church, which is schism, and results in the greatest possible harm to souls. Canon 1323 then condemns them, it does not save them.
Now, González Espondal then commits suicide with this canon, but he also tells us that the condemnation of Alfebre comes from the new code and tells us that the new code, which includes canon 1323 that he uses to justify himself, tells us that it is a code based on the mentality of the French Revolution and he does not give us a single citation to support this claim.
The only quote he gives, supposedly demonstrating the French Revolution mentality of the Code, is this one, a quote that says, a canon that says that it corresponds in the first place to the whole college of bishops and to the apostolic see to foster and direct among Catholics the ecumenical movement whose aim is to reintegrate all Christians into unity, a unity that the Church by the will of Christ is obliged to promote. This canon would be the justification for saying that the Code of Canon Law is, uh, of French Revolution mentality, right?
Uh, the same canon law code that has canon 1323 that he is using to justify himself. To speak of the condemnation of Lefebvre being based on the two-thousand-year-old traditional doctrine on the mission, jurisdiction, and pontifical power and the jurisprudence applied by Rome has been and will be essentially the same as that which has always been applied to schismatics, as we have already demonstrated in many other videos.
So, look at the intellectual dishonesty. The polemicist says that the 1983 code is a revolutionary, progressive, and anti-Catholic code, but then uses it to save Defebre or try to save him by invoking his canon 1323.
Now, if the code is modernist garbage, then the defense of Defebre is based on modernist garbage. You ca n't say the code is invalid when can82 excommunicates you, but magically it's valid and orthodox when you think it saves you; queima doesn't save you even if it were applied to you, as I already demonstrated. In other videos, for example, in the question and answer session about the fraternity of Saint Pius XO. I explain this canon, I read it completely and I analyze it deeply. Canon 1323.
This is called Protestant free examination.
I am my own father and the son, which gray hair is zacato and which is waste according to my convenience.
Pondal also commits a fallacy that we could call a genetic fallacy. He assumes that the fever condemnation is an invention of the Second Vatican Council and of the new and progressive mentality. This is false. The prohibition against consoling a bishop without a papal mandate did not originate in 1983, much less against the express will of the Pope. It is a principle of divine law taught by the Council of Trent, reaffirmed by Pius II, Pius IX in the fourth paragraph above, which we have already cited, and condemned with excommunication by Pius X. The 1983 code simply codifies the same truth that the Church has always taught. In other words, no one can usurp Peter's right to choose the successors of the apostles.
It's as if an apostle wanted to usurp the right of the apostle Peter to choose the new bishops, isn't it? Uh, justifying it by saying it's a new rule.
If Pondal wants to reject the 1883 code, it doesn't matter, because Trent and PO 12 condemn it. Likewise.
This is a right of the Pope, of Peter.
Notice who chose the apostle Matthias. It also includes a quote from Ratzinger, does n't it? Taken out of context when Ratzinger speaks of Vatican II as an incontlabus. The Syllabus is a document from Pius IX that condemns modern errors.
Now, when Ringer says this, he is not saying that the Second Vatican Council abdicates Catholic dogmas. He is conducting a theological analysis on a change in pastoral and diplomatic attitude towards the modern world. The syllabus of Pius IX was a blanket condemnation that we still must continue to follow and to which we must continue to adhere out of magisterial obedience.
The Second Vatican Council sought dialogue to evangelize.
By saying it's a contrasyllabus, he means it has a different tone, right?
One can agree, right?, with the pastoral strategy, one can think that it was naive or imprudent, but a pastoral strategy does not destroy the jurisdiction of the Church.
Furthermore, a theological opinion of Cardinal Ratzinger in a book is not magisterium.
To seize upon a single phrase to claim that the entire Church became revolutionary and justify a schism is an absurd logical leap. What is Pondal's logic? As Ratzinger says, Vatican II is a contra-syllabus, that is, it goes against all the definitions or all the dogmatic doctrine of the syllabus of Pius IX.
Now, the canon law code is founded on the council of the second, which is a contrasillabus. Therefore, the canon law code that condemns us is heretical, isn't it? As de Febre would say, it is full of errors, not to mention heresies. Verbatim quotes from Febre.
Now, we have already seen that this phrase from Ratzinger is, to begin with, a single phrase that needs to be interpreted. And secondly, even if you say, even if we grant for the sake of argument that the 1983 code of canon law is, uh, modernist, as they say, uh, this Lefebvrian practice is condemned by everything in the previous codex and all previous tradition.
On the other hand, González Pondal seeks to take refuge in canon 17, the code of canon law, right? He tells us it's modernist garbage and then wants to take refuge in canon 17.
What does canon 17 say? Let's see.
He says, sorry, what does he say? And what does Pondal say about Canon 17 after having discredited the very code where Canon 17 is located? He says, " Febre's detractors also silenced canon 17.
I don't warn you, I don't silence you. Now I'm going to read it. The canon says, ' Ecclesiastical laws must be understood according to the proper meaning of the words, considering the text and the context.'" If it is doubtful and obscure, one must resort to parallel places where they exist, considering the purpose and circumstances of the law and the intention of the legislator. Okay, let's clarify canon 17, which completely refutes ephebrism and which should not be hidden or silenced because it works in our favor. It plays in favor of the Church of Christ.
Pondalcis's fallacy of obscurity does not fit interpretation. Things that are clear need no interpretation. It is a basic principle of law.
Canon 17 establishes a strict order of interpretation. He says, and I quote, " Ecclesiastical laws must be understood according to the proper meaning of the words, and if this is doubtful or obscure, one must resort to parallel passages.
To begin with, parallel passages are all those we have already cited that condemn Lefebvrist's practice. And secondly, Pondal cites Canon 17, forgetting the supreme principle of legal hermeneutics in Claris Interpretazio, where there is clarity, there can be no interpretation.
Canon 17 says that other intentions are only sought if the [laughs] text is doubtful or obscure. Now, the canon that prohibits keeping a bishop without papal mandate is not one millimeter obscure. It is dazzlingly clear. Go and read it. Canon 1382.
He who consecrates without papal mandate incurs automatic communion.
Where is the doubt? Pondal wants to force an obscurity that does not exist to justify the unjustifiable through a legalistic pirouette. And then these same people are the ones who call us legalists. These same people who call us legalists are..." The legalists are the innovators, the progressives in law, and they are the ones who invoke the 1983 code, which they then call modernist and garbage.
Okay, let's go to the other part of canon 17, which says that in case of doubt, one must go to the intention of the legislator. First, there is no case of doubt here. Second, let's see what happens if we go to the intention of the legislator. This is the worst thing that can happen to fraternity and the intention of the legislator. Let's play Pondal's game.
Suppose the law was doubtful, and we are going to look for the intention of the legislator as canon 17 mandates. Who was the supreme legislator in 1988? Pope John Paul II. What was his intention? There's no need to guess. On June 9, 1988, John Paul II wrote him a personal letter, begging him not to consecrate the Holy Spirit through the wounds of Christ. And on June 17, the carnal Gantin sent him a formal warning and canonical, warning of excommunication.
The legislator's intention was explicit, direct, and highly personal: do not consecrate because you will fall into schism. And this same thing is happening now. Fernández already said the same thing.
How can Pondal appeal to the legislator's intention and tell us that we are silencing this canon when the legislator told, told to his founder's face, the founder of Pondal, not to do what he is doing?
Let's go to the third contingent point of canon 17, the purpose of the law and the circumstances of the law. What is the theological purpose of requiring a papal mandate to consecrate a successor of the apostles? It is mere legalism, a mere norm of positive human, ecclesiastical law; it is not divine law.
Pondal asks us to look at the purpose of the law according to canon 17. Fine, let's do it in light of the Catholic dogma we already cited and of Pius X. The purpose of requiring a papal mandate to consecrate bishops is to protect the unity of the The Church, which is divine, must safeguard the supreme jurisdiction of Peter, which is divine, and prevent the creation of sects and schisms that go against the divine unity of Christ and the Church. This has already happened, for example, since the sectarian schism of Febre, with the Williamsonian and Sedacanthist sects that emerged from it, who applied the same malpractice of using the state of necessity as Febre.
In other words, they did what Pondar is celebrating.
They destroyed the unity of the Church protected by that canon, the canon that prohibits consecration without a mandate.
And now they want to do the same.
Febre's act directly attacked the heart of the purpose of the law, which is the salvation of souls. And the purpose of the Code of Canon Law, in addition to the salvation of souls, is also the unity of the Church, to protect the unity of the Catholic Church. That is why it is ecclesiastical law, to protect unity.
The purpose of the law is Catholic unity for the salvation of souls. "How can they believe if we are not one?"
Christ says. Therefore, The ephebre creates a parallel hierarchy without a canonical mission and produces a schism.
Pondal uses a canon designed to protect the unity of the Church in order to justify breaking that very unity. It is a logical and moral absurdity. It is a moral perversion, for which he must apologize publicly and retract because, as Pondal himself will tell us, error has no rights. He cannot preach these things publicly; he has no right.
In short, Tomás González Pondal cites Canon 17 thinking that it gives him license to interpret the Code of Canon Law as he pleases. But if we apply Canon 17, as we have already done, we see that the penal text was clear, that the purpose of the law was to protect Catholic unity for the salvation of souls, and that the legislator, the Pope, expressly prohibited the act and continues to prohibit it. Therefore, Pondal is not doing canonical exegesis; he is engaging in capricious and biased juggling. And when one plays at being a canonist without submitting to the mind of the Church, one ends up justifying the Schism.
And I ask, aren't they aware that schism is a mortal sin against charity that leads to eternal damnation? What are they boasting about? Leading souls to hell? They're boasting? Is that okay? Is it all right that there's a need to improve the liturgy, the doctrine? Is there a state of crisis? There's no need to set up a parallel ministry, and there's never been a need to fabricate a schism. It's all right that there's a modernist, neo-modernist crisis of Masonic infiltration within the Church. That's true, we grant it. Now, that leads to hell. Yes. Now, a chasm also leads to hell.
So, what are they talking about under the guise of tradition?
Well. Yet another thing Pondal does, is n't it? He cites documents by John Paul II, Benedict XV, and Francis on ecumenism, fiducia supplicans, and so on, to argue that Rome is modernist, that Rome is against everything Right and law, and therefore— here comes the logical leap—the fraternity has the right to operate and console bishops by the first law of the salvation of souls, as if the first law of the salvation of souls included the possibility of creating a sigma to save souls.
It is true that the first law is the salvation of souls, but within the Catholic Church, not outside of it.
Outside the Church there is no salvation; that is another dogma. We recall Boniface's Pondalam, which not only says extraclesiam nulla salus (there is no salvation outside the Church), but also that salvation is impossible for anyone who submits to the Supreme Pontiff.
It says that it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the Roman Pontiff, and this is necessary for every human being.
So, where is that dogma?
We cannot make a collage of dogmas.
I take the dogma I like best. I take the principle I like best. Yes, the salvation of souls. Good. And Catholic unity as well. The salvation of souls in unity Catholic and through Catholic unity, not through independent sects.
And he concludes by asking, falling into another fallacy, the "you too" fallacy, he asks, "Where does the mission of modern priests who commit abuses come from?" He falls into the "you too" fallacy, the poorest of all. He argues that since the Roman authorities commit very serious errors, then the fraternity's schism is validated. He won't call it a schism, he won't call it holy heroism. Well, here we need to do some basic math. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Modernist heresy plus the Ephebrian schism.
No, no, no, no, they don't balance out, they don't send any more souls to hell.
Part of the Church's crisis is this Ephebrian schism. That's why we fight it. That's why they ask me, "Why does Ezequiel have so many videos about this?" They go to hell.
Of course they do. to hell.
Part of the crisis in the Church is this sectarianism that leads to hell, as Saint Paul said. Sectarianism leads to hell. Pondal also confuses the misuse of authority with the absence of authority. It's one thing to have authority and misuse it, and another to have no authority at all.
A modernist bishop in communion with Rome may be exercising his jurisdiction in a terrible and sinful way, permitting heresies.
But he has jurisdiction. Whether we like it or not, it means we have to obey his sin or not, but he has jurisdiction. A bishop of the Fraternity may give a beautifully orthodox sermon, wearing an excellent, beautiful cassock, in a beautiful chapel with a delightful liturgy and incense, but he has neither mission nor jurisdiction. And this is not legalism; this means he has no governing power, that is, he cannot bind and loose, and that his ministry is unlawful, so whoever participates in it goes to hell. Do you understand this? This is not legalism. It's theology. Do you think the diabolical world doesn't take these things into account? A demon, a devil, will have a field day with a priest who has no spiritual power.
It's like asking an exorcist, what happens to someone who tries to perform an exorcism without jurisdiction?
They'll devour that exorcist raw. Does he have the capacity to exorcise? Yes, he does. Does he have jurisdiction? No, he doesn't. So, in case of need, how much need is there now for exorcisms?
There's a need for exorcisms everywhere.
There are few exorcists. That means everyone can be their own exorcist.
Now, did you know that the fraternity has its own exorcists without jurisdiction?
That's true. Uh, ask them.
This is terrible. I mean, having the metaphysical capacity to say Mass doesn't give you the spiritual authority to say Mass. Saying Mass without jurisdiction is sacrilege, and it's putting the Souls in danger. It is submitting to diabolical action.
Even more so, sacramental invalidity. Because confessions and marriages without jurisdiction, without faculties, are invalid.
They are invalid. That is why Francis gave them extraordinary faculties so that they would not be invalid.
Pondal says there is no mission for modernist scandals. It is true, there is no mission to sin, but neither is there a mission to console the bishop without a mandate from the Vicar of Christ or against his will.
Well, we have 15 minutes and I have to go.
This is, in short, what I wanted to say. Are there more things that can be said? Yes, but we cannot say everything.
Thank you for listening. I will now move on to the comments. We have 300 comments. I invite you once again to the masterclass this Wednesday at 8:00 p.m.
Masterclass: Chesterton and madness, sanity, the reconquest of sanity in Chesterton, in Saint Thomas Aquinas, in the mystical theology of Saint Abbot, Divine Providence, in the Beatitudes. From Saint Thomas More.
Okay, let's move on to the comments, and of course, remember that Pronoia is sustained by donations, committed donors, stable donors who can contribute their grain of sand every month so that we can preach the gospel to all nations. Our intention is to reach every nation in the world we can. The idea is to learn other languages.
The idea is to learn, to preach to every creature, as Christ said.
Okay, when will there be an adversity? God willing, soon. Pray for that intention.
Uh, the Pope doesn't err in matters of faith and morals. Well, he can err if he does n't define something. If he simply says something about faith and morals, he can err. Uh, infallibility only applies when he defines something. And being assisted—mind you, being assisted doesn't imply that he can't respond to the grace of existence.
The Pope is always assisted. That's true. Yes, the Magisterium is always assisted. But be careful, there's a distinction here. Being always assisted is not the grace of infallibility, you know?
We must confuse assistance habitual with infallibility. Infallibility is something that allows you to be without error, it's something that prevents you from erring. Assistance is a habitual fruit of the state of primacy, but it does n't prevent you from sinning, from teaching errors or ambiguities, if you are unfaithful to that grace.
Hey, watch out, hey, no, no. The Pope is not always infallible. That's not the dogma of Vatican I. That's even heretical. Hey, it's heretical because it ridicules the dogma of Vatican I. I say this with Matías Descano.
Good night, Bruno. I ca n't understand how the Lefiorites don't see the spirit of Luther in their actions, and perhaps because they are influenced by the same spirit of Luther, which is the diabolical spirit.
Protestants are not only Scripture, but also obedience to the Magisterium. Le Febre is only tradition. Not even, because tradition also condemns them.
[snort] Good night.
Exactly. Luther and Le Febre, who By the way, they both spell with an L, and they fundamentally believe the same thing: free examination, one of Scripture, the other of Tradition.
They both exclude the living Magisterium, right? Yes. Yes.
Ezekiel, I heard an apologist say that canon law doesn't distinguish between ordinations without a mandate and counter-mandates.
What document condemns ordinations against a negative mandate?
It's true, canon law doesn't expressly distinguish between ordinations without a mandate and counter-mandates, but counter-mandates are implicitly contained within those without a mandate. This is obvious, isn't it?
One category would be operations without mandates, and one species would be counter-mandates. Within the various possibilities of consecrating without a mandate, one of them, and the most serious, is counter-mandates. There's no need to go to a document that condemns them. This is already implicit in the code. The greater includes the lesser.
Counter-mandates are included in those without a mandate. Well, if you want a document, you can go to the fourth paragraph of Pius IX. Fourth Paragraph.
Arsinarum Yenten of Pius II.
Mystic Corporis Christi of Pius II.
Um, what was this one called? The one we read today, uh, Apostle, Prince of Pius II, uh, Qu Nunquan of Pius IX.
Uh, well, there's more, there's more, there's more. Now they've gone away. There's no way to defend Tucho's position or the synodal heresy. What would Tucho's position be? Blessings for homosexual couples, of course, that should n't be defended. The synodal heresy, well, we'd have to see what it refers to. It refers to everything that is heretical within the set of synodal things, of course, that shouldn't be defended.
Nor is there any way to defend what Leo II did before the false archbishop. I don't know what he did. I know that he received her, I know that a prelate crossed himself. That is uncrilegious, of course. It is indefensible. The Tucho, although he's not my favorite, is a cardinal of the Catholic Church, more respect. I try not to say "of Tucho."
Well, yes, of course.
Fernández can be wrong. Uh, what are you telling us here? Bartholomew Tucho made schism-like statements blaspheming against the existence of the Holy Spirit.
If you follow him, you share in his sin. What are you talking about now? Just because he made a mistake once doesn't mean that when he does something right we won't obey him. He still has jurisdiction, no matter how badly he may have done something.
Yes, he still has jurisdiction. We must be submissive to the jurisdiction he has by divine right. Uh, from Peter, fantastic. There's no persecuting those who don't want to see the serious situation the Church is suffering. We never deny this, right? Never.
There's no crisis. No, this is false. This is false. There is a terrible crisis. A terrible crisis, one of the worst in the history of the Church. Uh, one of the worst in the history of the Church. The only reason I don't say it's the It's worse because I didn't live through all the previous ones.
But even if I had, I would n't have any more authority to say so. Yes, a terrible crisis. How can you deny it?
Of course. The current crisis is worse than the Arian crisis. Whoever doesn't want to see it becomes complicit with the destroyers. This may be worse than the Arian church. It may be worse. The fact that the church isn't in its best era doesn't mean the Apostolic See is vacant. If it wasn't vacant with terrible popes, it's even less likely now.
Christ's prayer that Peter not fail is infallible. I calculated. Yes, this is true. [sighs] It's true. That's why we should n't... this is what I'm telling you, right? To those who perhaps follow this channel and think that we shouldn't admit there's a crisis in the church, there's no problem admitting that. Part of admitting that is trusting in Christ's promise. No matter how great the crisis, the ship won't sink.
Christ's promise is that there won't be a crisis, it's not... He's going to defect, but he didn't say [snort] the gates of hell aren't going to attack, quite the contrary. Peter said, the devil wants to persecute you, you're being shaken.
I have begged him three times to stand firm.
So, denying the crisis is against scripture. Uh, [snort] the crisis is part of, uh, the true church. The true church always has some crisis. The one now, in my opinion, is one of the worst in history.
The followers want to believe that the Pope is the successor of Christ, when in reality he is the successor of Peter, it's not wrong to have the trust placed in him to do anything. I don't know if this is so.
[snort] Uh, the followers don't even believe in the Pope.
This is true, isn't it?
Well, this could be or it might not be. It 's not much better. Ah, I also find the comments a little amusing. Uh uh. The Mass isn't much better than I saw it.
I don't know, no. In a certain sense it may be better, in a certain sense it may be worse. [snort] Substantially, it's the same. Both are Masses and have infinite value, right?
In some ways, the old one will be better, in some ways, it will be better.
To be a Defebrist requires two equally extreme ingredients: a lot of pride and little intelligence.
Uh, Communion standing, in the hand. You still receive Communion, right? Kneeling, on the tongue.
Well, whoever wants to accumulate things can, since the Church unleashed that possibility.
The Synogalists get on with it. Okay, define for me what a Synogalist is. What is a new list?
If you define it, I might grant it.
Well, look, this morning I heard a lecture by Father Ezequiel from the Fraternity, not me. Of course. There he clearly says that the new Mass is as meager as Cain's sacrifice. I knelt down. Who? And who is the Father?
Father Ezequiel Rubio, whom I also challenged to a debate. Who has what authority to say whether the new Mass is meager or not? Mean?
Who is Father Rubio? Who sent him? What authority does he have?
How can he say that the new Mass is mean on the sacrifice of Cain?
Where does he start from? From a subjective analysis of the missal, of the rubrics. What part of the missal is heretical or mean like the sacrifice of Cain?
If you tell me, "No, because the Mass celebrated on the corner of my street is a disaster." Fine, it's a disaster, but because it's celebrated badly. Now bring me a single quote from the Missal that is heretical or mean.
Fernández, with his documents, Fiducha súplican popul Fidelis, proved to be a modernist infiltrator, albeit indirect, in the style of Francis. Well, it would have to be proven; it hasn't been proven. It would have to be proven; it's a possibility, why not?
Communion is received kneeling, on the tongue, as it should be. Only consecrated hands can touch the sacred host. It is received on the tongue, as it should be. Ideally, only consecrated hands can take the sacred form. Well, that hasn't always been the case, and the church allows hands not with saradas to touch the sarad form. So the Catholic Church isn't going to universally allow sacrificial discipline, is it?
Furthermore, this has already been done in tradition, although not in the same way.
I humbly maintain that the new Mass, being more in communion with the present day of the Church, gives more grace than the Tridentine Mass on the verge of communion. No, absolutely not.
[snort] They are both masses, they are both holy, they both give the same grace.
No, no, don't fall into ideologies, okay?
No, no, long live the Eucharistic ministers, please. Long live the priests who give communion and the extraordinary ministers when they are needed. When they don't need to leave.
I spent 30 years within conciliarism and I left tired of the decline of doctrine and liturgy. It happens that this can happen. We need to know where to go within the current crisis. You shouldn't go just anywhere.
But you shouldn't be scandalized, you should stay in the church.
Now I'm warning you about this, right? To all the followers who may have pronobia who are going to deny the crisis in the church. No way, no way. That's no good.
The crisis in the church is fought with holiness from within, not by going out and throwing stones from the outside. That's true.
Exact. Very good.
Correct. Very good.
Well, all this is sentimental, my dear brother. Do n't be shocked.
Yes, within the hierarchical communion, uh, what you're saying is Protestant. Go and read any of the early Protestants and they all say the same thing.
We break with the unity of government because only the apostolic doctrine is needed.
This is decomposed nonsense. No.
Well, no argument from the Febrians, no argument at all. All attacks to dominate. How interesting. Do n't you think you'll come and debate in public?
Well, this is also refuted, eh, Prima un Tempore in matters of discipline and cannot bind future popes in matters of discipline. Future popes can only be bound by matters of dogma. The liturgy disciplines.
Yes, absolutely. Here it goes.
Rome's special envoys to the fraternity, Vitus Wonder and Mon Schneider, refute the nonsense that the modernists assert regarding the fraternity.
First of all, they are sent to study the situation, not to be infallible, right?
Secondly, insofar as they depart from the doctrine of the church and what the Church has always said and what Rome has already said on this subject, they should not be listened to.
Basic, period. We follow whatever they say is correct. We don't follow what they say is wrong. In other words, you're going to take everything they say as true just because Rome sent them.
In that case, you should accept everything that Channel Fernández tells you because Rome sent it with that same premise.
Look, here we have a canonizer of people. There are only two bishops left.
What else? What are you going to do? What else?
Okay, let's wrap this up.
Well, folks, enough with the old wives' tales, says Saint Paul, practice piety. Read the prayers of Saint Bridget. Look for Saint Bridget's prayers for fertility.
familiar in the last battle of marriage and family as Lucia of Fatima said, we must review the prayers of Saint Orgida, that is not an obligation. I recommend them, look them up. Prayers to Saint Origida for one year and twelve years old ( good).
Glory to the Fatherland, Holy Spirit.
Don't forget to like, subscribe, and comment. Spread the word for the glory of God. Salvation of souls. The salvation of souls depends on our apostolic zeal. Teach the salveato Paoloana.
If we are not zealous in our apostolate, we will not save souls.
Big hug. Long live Christ the King.
Videos Relacionados
BREAKING: Judge Kathleen Issues Emergency Arrest Warrant After Trump Defies Order
Frontora
2K views•2026-05-29
Trump Impeachment STORM IGNITES as 29 Judges Vote for Conviction!!
DanielBriefDaily
2K views•2026-06-02
सुप्रीम कोर्ट में 5 जजों का शपथग्रहण समारोह #supremecourt #judges #oathceremony #shorts #ytshorts
Bharat24Liv
4K views•2026-06-02
THE STREISAND EFFECT AT BARBARA STREISAND’S HOUSE! - First Amendment Audit
KULTNEWS
1K views•2026-05-30
EBK Jaaybo Won’t Be Going To Trial?! | Criminal Lawyer Reacts
floridadefenseteam
404 views•2026-05-29
OFFICE HOURS: The Theft of Black Brilliance... AI and Intellectual Property (w/ Lisa E. Davis)
marclamonthillnetwork
2K views•2026-05-29
Monkton family worries husband who murdered wife could inherit all of her assets
WMAR2news
152 views•2026-06-02
Jury seated in the Frisco Track Meet stabbing trial — opening statements set for tomorrow
Wfaa8
343 views•2026-06-03
